Rule Britannia rule the waves yourself..But this time probably even the Scottish will disobey to follow Saint George any longer.
Rule Britannia as your rule is based on few borrowed trident missiles on a submarine, and a couple of French warplanes deployed on a rusty carrier.
But dear Britannia all this mighty deterrence cannot camouflage your position in the global context of 21th century which will be one of a small country with low profile rocking the world from time to time with great music, good books and royal gossip..
So how to rule Britannia in 21th century? Joining the United States per referendum? However we assume this would be a wrong turn as the Hispanics were not really welcoming so many immigrants on their shores. Will be your last exit the good old Common Wealth forever? But to be honest with you Britannia, from an economical point of view it is quite questionable whether a business case based more or less on trading financial products in exchange of copper and wool is really paying off, isn't it?

take it easy and be reasonable, it is always difficult adapting to reality..and by the way I agree with most of UK's positions towards the EU as I dont believee in the United States of Europe at all. But I think personal freedom and free trade is essential and why not taking advantage of countrie's synergy potential concerning security, defence,R&D, financial regulation, infrastructure, etc.pp.

and to make it clear, UK always huddled with other sheeps too,your problem right now is that you are tending to becoming a black sheep, so life wont become easyer..

That's a shame because the fundamental point that UKIP and the other europhobes don't get is that Britain is going to have to make a mental adjustment to being a small country well down the rankings on GDP, defence etc. We have the choice of being a junior partner of a country over which we can have no influence - the USA, in case you haven't guessed - or be an equal member of an association of nations which collectively has the scale to measure up to the superpowers - yes, the EU. A return to splendid isolation, whilst possible, will produce manifestly inferior outcomes. The last time we tried that we ran 25% of the world, now it's 1% and falling.

Time to shut the europhobes up and get on with solving our problems, none of which has anything to do with Europe. Debating Britain's future in Europe is an irrelevant distraction we do not have time for.

yep i agree! i would love to see a strong and fair partnership between UK and GER within and outside the EU..we are more close as you think unless mentioning the war what you tend to do from time to time camouflaging a subtile pain derived from wounded national pride when you think at what you have lost by winning WW2..forget your Empire, your european balance of power politics, stop trying always punching above your weight and partner with us: France and Germany

Cameron should be booted out of office. His policies are ruining the UK. They've already had a double dip recession under his tenure. He should be forced to do this in Parliament: http://youtu.be/3ALkF0O9vYo

nic mudie:
“If the Euro survives it will only be...But will the Eurozone survive?”
...and then “Four broad scenarios seem possible over the next year to 18 months.” (Although none of them consider the eventuality of EZ death): Scenario 1: “The Eurozone holds together,...”; Scenario 2 : “The Eurozone holds together but...”; Scenario 3: “England leaves the EU...”(big deal, the main essence paraphrased); Scenario 4: “Germany chooses to leave...”

................
First of all when you use reference to “we” do you include Scotland as well (it is questionable to use UK...the wishes of Scots must be heard first). An economic illiterate might consider situation, July 2012 US$/Euro 1.21 January 2013 US$/Euro 1.33 and ditto for lowly Pound, as a signal of imminent doomsday. No, the Euro is here to stay. In fact it is no.1 world currency in circulation as of March 2012. This resolution does not refer to the fate of the political EU.

The question is will UK stay or leave. UK is opportunistically sitting on a fence for too long and it is time: Scenario1: to kick them out and implement imposition of visas (although it might be legally difficult unless using some sabotage charges or treason). Scenario 2: Leave finally por favor! You are as essential to Europe as baby duck in the bath tub. England defies geographic factors, as US defied them fatefully in Vietnam, and deluding in being part of NA. Try it, your journey to eventual nothingness will begin. Enormous foreign debt repayment with collapsed Pound will get you there.

We shouldn't be fearmongering Britain's decision making. However, it's too easily forgotten now that, before Britain joined the EU, the 'British disease' looked incurable. It was the EU which helped Britain to overcome this. Margret Thatcher was not a fool when she, then, applied her TINA (There Is No Alternative) principle also to Britain's EEC membership.

The British also shouldn't forget that they have to feed a nation of 60 million (not exactly being a tiny Luxembourg or Singapore). This was why Thatcher promoted the City's role as the EU's main financial service-provider (approx 93% of the City's revenue is connected with dealings within the EU).

In her service connection with the EU, Britain could draw on her language-advantage and her financial expertise from the imperial epoch. But what advantage in this respect does Britain have over the USA, Canada, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand etc.?

Still, Britain should do what's best for Britain, so should France or Germany and the rest of the EU countries. But this decision-process shouldn't degenerate into an ongoing 'fence-sitting event'. This harms both, Britain and the EU.

The problem at this is that we always know 'what is best' AFTER the decisive step was taken . . . never before.

The EU seems to have helped everyone. It helped the Germans, the French, the Brits, BeNeLux, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, central Europe....
How ironic that it truly is incredibly malfunctioning, yet it still managed to help these nations. We would have all be worse off in there was no EU.
We do need to redefine it though. Make it more democratic. Make it less laborious. Allow all its members equal treatment. Defend everyone's interests. Promote sustainable growth.
Make the most of it

Cojo nudo , mon Dieu! Yet another chap who thinks that mere assertions constitute the refutation of any argument, let alone mine. Obviously another follower of the oracular school of philosophy. An economic illiterate I may well be, but mein lieber Man, your ‘ none of them consider’ (sic) is just plain illiterate since ‘not one’ must be the subject of a singular verb. Once you’ve calmed down you’ll notice that my scenario 3 assumes the EZ falls apart and 4 leaves the matter open. What the rump EZ without German would bring is anybody’s guess.

Scotland in/ Scotland out makes no real difference to the thinking that needs doing by our dear leaders. Scotland out, means a more likely ‘out’ vote on any EU referendum, but that’s not what we are discussing here.

As for your currency statements: the factors that alter day to day currency movements when everybody is trying to out export everybody else and print money like there’s no tomorrow are not a reflection of the long term economic success of any polity/currency union. What about volume considerations in a thin market, what about interest rate differentials, what about current account balances?

You are calling me to “calm down” and what is your first paragraph really...argument or subtle fume and adulation seeking grammar editor.

Make yourself clear in your superfluous Scenario 2 : “The Eurozone falls apart or remains as rump with Germany as the main inheritor with or without France.” What falls apart?

I am not a defender of the EU in its present redundant political structure but I am defender of the EZ. There are negatives in this “diaper” period but the benefits will overtake in the long run. Ironically England is willing partner of the EU but the defection will affect its economy much more severely than the EU.

There is nothing new; the barking at the Euro is expected from the competing currencies.

Hey, hey, un fallimento nel senso d'umore? These are only scenarios so let's get to the nexus of your complaint. One easily envisageable scenario - note, not recommendation as this is putative not descriptive language - is that e.g Greece drops out of the Euro followed by Italy. The commercial wasteland around me in Le Marche is pretty terrifying in human terms; unemployment pay is almost non existent and even when it arrives a year late is well nigh invisible. As a non-economist I predicted that Italy's GDP to Gvt debt ratio in 2012 would hit 128%. and so it has. Not difficult really because even if a gvt. keeps a tight rein on expenditure if the denominator of the sum gets smaller and the numerator remains constant the ratio must go up. Add to this that even if a primary surplus were to be achieved with Italy's 7 year average rollover period and interest rates at say 4% we are rapidly getting into 6% plus of GDP going in interest payments the net effect of which alone increases indebtedness. Domestic purchasing power has been steadily dropping for over 10 yrs and exports look unlikely to save the day as ever since the Euoro came in Italy has increased its unit labour costs against Germany by some 40% and this, when Italian workers are paid nothing like as much as German workers.The very lack of investment in modern production techniques and R&D that is part of the cause of this discrepancy also explains in part the technical backwardness of their products. Add to that the non transmission of lower interest rates from the ECB through the banking system to club med countries and you can see that exports are unlikely to save the day. Meanwhile the gvt. will soon have to start paying out unemployment benefits that have not been budgetted for. France has had the fastest growing national debt in the EZ and doesn't look like doing much about it and even if it does, depression might well be at a faster rate than expenditure cutback. Whether you like the Euro or not the point is that some contingency planning on our part needs to be done in case things begin to fall apart. Some EZ countries leave - say the ones with a weaker fiscal current account position - then Germany faces two problems: a rising currency and a target two mess since a lot of the current account weakness is a complement to German exports and credit position. Kiss and make up?
Nic

The United Kingdom is Today`s Russia. UK positions on the Euro Crisis, are, in fact, "a riddle wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma."
What do british politicians believe in? A stronger Europe? A weaker Europe? Do they agree with the idea of creating the "United States of Europe"? Do they think that the end of the European Union is inevitable? Do they prefer to stay out of the European Union? If this hypothetical question was to be asked to David Cameron: Do You think the UK should leave the European Union?, He would answer (like Francis Urquhart, "his collegue" in Office) "You might very well think that; I couldn´t possible comment."

I do not agree with UK`S position, but I respect UK´s direct and strict policy, after all, to recall a british expression, "honesty is the best policy".

On negotiations, perhaps we should take a clue from "Roger Fisher", athor of the method of principled negotation (negotiation on merits), developed at the Harvard Negotation Project, and create our own best alternative to a negotation agreement (batna). What is the best alternative for Europe? Letting aside "blaming issues", no keeping score of who did what to whom. What is the best way? I believe the end of the European Union, the end of the Euro is not a solution. I still think, despite the crisis, that the European Union is the best political idea (concept) that ever existed. Don´t throw out the baby with the bath water (" Das Kind mit dem Bade ausschütten.")

Interesting none (included the Economist) has mentioned what the real problems for England and Cameron of course are.

Mainly 2 :

The new tough EU regulations on the banking system which the London's billionaires do not like

The immigration from East which in recent years has seen the tollerant british people turned in a sort of mix between old Germans and modern Swiss !!! Where the foreigner is seen as someone to discriminate and use as much as yuo can for the dirty jobs or to be left outside the door.

Obviously British politicians could never say this in public. Too shameful to state that the real reasons they want to leave EU is the pressure of the Riches and the racists

Mr Paxman interviews two panels, one pro-EU membership and one-anti, consisting of business people, one Norwegian politician and a Brussels bot. About 2min 30 sec in, the Brussels mouthpiece called Katynka Barysch (who is she?) stridently and stiffly announced that “pick and mix” was not on the table and would not be “tolerated”, her tenor and manner being of course that of the nasty totalitarian tradition. This is good news in that it makes the choice clear for a long overdue IN/OUT referendum for Britain.

The pro-membership business people were unconvincing and vague. The Norwegian lady debunked their scare stories about trade relationships with the “EU”, and an influential Chinese businessman affirmed that whether Britain was in or out of the “EU” made no difference to the Chinese who anyway regard the € currency with suspicion and future of the “EU” with doubt.

Going s bit off-topic, the sub-Goebbels editing on the video you linked to is interesting. It eliminates most of the best arguments for staying in. As an articulate ad-man Martin Sorrell has the honour of being the most suppressed. Katynka Barysch, you referred to, also made a couple of telling points that were also suppressed.

BBC 'bias' has resulted in their 'censoring' many people who are opponents of the EU/EZ, so I for one don't see much difference. The BBC should not have what you call a 'stand' at all. They are financed by the public purse and should be even-handed in their approach. This used to be the case on other controversial topics, but no longer is.

I can't answer for Birtnick. Perhaps he didn't know there was 'a real McCoy'

There'salso a 'The Economist' bias. Someone doesn't like the proposal of making Portugal your ally in the EU.
Provided we get an apology.
We can let your Cameron hold his speech here. In the Algarve for instance.

For about three years, Charlemagne and hundreds of posters fought here a tiny bit of action of the silly Euro war.

The war ended clearly in March 2011, but “partizans” on the mountains tried to keep it going until last Summer.

Now Charlemagne and his retinue of posters are devoting themselves to the “war” in Britain: those who wish Britain to leave the EU, those who wish her to stay. This “war” has a rather confused twin: the war between financial interests and Britons' interests.

Not coincident, to be clear: neither the interests nor the two “wars”.

I was always a supporter of Charlemagne's fact gathering capabilities, a critic, often very outspoken, of his inability to understand what goes on in the minds of other people.

Let me say that his fact gathering capabilities do not seem diminished as he now starts looking to Britain but his powers of analysis, judging from this first article, seem to have improved a lot.

It's perhaps time to go back to the old arrangement: Charlemagne to write about Britain, and Blighty to write about the EU. It was Blighty the previous Charlemagne, was he not?

Apart from these journalistic faits divers, the important thing is obviously this: is Britain finally going to give up her Humpty Dumpty posture of sitting forever on a wall and either fully join or fully leave?

This is the continuation of the silly Euro war. In fact, future historians will probably come to the conclusion that the real war has always been a mixture of a civil British “war”: in or out of the EU, and organized crime in high finance against honest authorities.

The first chapter, the Euro war, was a phoney war as WW2 was until April 1940.

Having forfeited by conscious choice the right to intervene in British domestic policy, I will not give an opinion on what Britain should do or what I think will be better for Britain.

But I think I am not trespassing Britons' right to decide their future, if I give my opinions on what now an outsider such as me would like to see and what I feel will probably occur.

As a EU citizen I'd love Britain to be in: although far from being the power she once was, and having some difficulties to accept it, Britain has a lot to offer. Mostly the high quality of her native sons.

But, if we believe in polls, her native sons seem to prefer to be out. My guess is that politicians will attempt another bit of fudge so Britain stays in, whereas Britons would prefer the opposite. This may generate a lot of bad blood I am not sure will be to the interest of either Britons or EU members. So, maybe, fully out will be the least bad solution for all.

For Britons, and Britons alone, to decide.

Speaking of bad blood, I would like now to mention something personal that puzzles me no end: in between Christmas and New Year I was the object of an artillery barrage. Nothing to worry about were it not for the fact that the whole thing had a peculiar twist: those who attacked me, not very gentlemanly to put it mildly, included some who had always filled me with laudatory remarks (others not so much) one having even started writing to my email , which for some reason I ignore (jealousy?) provoked for the first time in years surprising objections.

That poster started very friendly and suddenly changed course with some rather peculiar, absurd for any sane mind and very ungentlemanly accusations. Another one, and previously rather friendly too, followed the same course.

Maybe I touched unwittingly some raw nerve. If that is so, my apologies.

But honestly it doesn't look that way. The whole thing looked as pre-arranged and planned as they come: messages here from one of the two posters contained information that the other poster had only sent to my private mail.

So either the two of them were the same person or they exchanged information as I was careful never to pass it on.

As for my raw nerves don't worry: I was born without them.

I'll ask a favour to Moderators: please find some excuse to delete this post. The important bit about policy will have be read by Charlemagne anyway and is already in the hands I wish to reach. The other bit, which is also already where I want it to be, will not increase the prestige of this newspaper and this thread if it remains here for long. I only post it in the probably forlorn hope that innocent bystanders will understand the world is not always what it looks like.

"For about three years, Charlemagne and hundreds of posters fought here a tiny bit of action of the silly Euro war.

The war ended clearly in March 2011, but 'partizans' on the mountains tried to keep it going until last Summer."

__________________________________

As you've been told by others before me, what your posts offer in imaginative story-telling, they reliably lack in logical consistency, Sanmartinian.

You've been telling us forever that your country, PORTUGAL, became the euro zone's second trouble child after Greece only because there's a "silly euro war" going on, and once it would end, all would be fine again.

And you were quick to denounce anybody disagreeing with you and pointing out that Portugal et al. are suffering from structural problems laid bare (and in part aggravated) by the common currency, as "paid bloggers", "stupid" and the like - even if they were FOR the euro, such as myself.

Now you are telling us the "silly euro war" has been over for nearly two years, "since March 2011". According to you, that would mean that Portugal's crisis would be over, as well.

Now let's have a look - where does PORTUGAL stand today, two years on?

All I'm trying to say in my own special way is that the UK (not the country of course, but its leaders) is now reaping what she has sowed.
It has had one of the worst diplomacies vis-a-vis Europe in decades, neglecting former allies, spinning against others, showing discrimination and a pathological worry with France and Germany.~
Instead, it could have launched a constructive debate with friendly nations vis-a-vis the creation of alternatives to the current system. Some of the problems the UK is addressing are real and worth a thought or two. Imposing them on others with arrogance will never work.
IN the end the UK played a very bad hand, in a gambit where it could have been a lot cleverer and not be as isolated as it is right now.
There is a handful of nations which would have followed British lead, if appropriate diplomatic measures had been taken with time.
the 'apparent speech' Cameron is going to embarrass the Dutch with, is so much revealing of the state of despair in which the UK is right now.
Too little, too late, old friends!

William Hague, the asocial foreign policy chief of great confidence but narrow mind, education and awareness is to blame in my opinion. Cameron can't boss him but needs to. Otherwise wiser more expansive thinkers need to apply their influence on Cameron-Hague wrt foreign policy....otherwise Britain will be isolated, bullied and buffered, as no doubt Hague was at school....for being clever in a self-serving, friend-dismissing, enemy-creating asocial sort of way.

So the Americans, Germans, Irish, other Europeans, the British business community, Thatcher and Blair have said that Britain needs to be a leader inside Europe.
Rupert Murdoch's Sun, the Right Wing Daily Mail (and their low information readers) and a bunch of extremist, imperialist and typically very very old tory right wingers are saying that Britain should pull out so that it can go back to being great like in the days of Empire many decades ago, when the Earth was young.
Hmmmmpppphhhhhhhhh. What to do?

It is so nice to see Briatin going petty chuavinist and right wing because it might just as well be the wedge that will break the "strong Euro" unity by disassoicating the Dutch (who always had more affinity for the French than the Germans) from Germany and perhaps making France apply once again to be an associated member of the Elizabeth II R(egina, of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha misnamed Windsor) realm of the "UK", because there will be no "U" in there once Scotland secedes.

The Chairman of Next ,one of the biggest high-street fashion retailers, Lord Wolfson has said that; "Britain should stay in Europe, but only on the right terms. There is little to fear from a two-speed Europe, as long as Britain remains in the slow lane. If other 'core’ European countries want to lock themselves into more regulation, less democracy, and greater federalism that’s their decision. But we should take courage and resist the temptation to follow the crowd."

The statement from the British Chambers of Commerce.

"John Longworth, director-general of the BCC, said smaller businesses wanted to renegotiate terms of engagement pointing out that over a third of firms now feel that the disadvantages around the rules and regulations imposed by Brussels were outweighing the benefits of being part of the single market.

"Businesses across Britain are pragmatic, and want both a renegotiated relationship and a reinvigorated Single Market," said Mr Longworth. "We should not be afraid to set out our stall, because we start with a strong negotiating position. Our trade with the rest of Europe is in deficit, so it is not in Europe’s interest to exclude the UK."

The Economist and Europhiles should listen to what businesses are saying, and they are overwhelmingly saying that the government should renegotiate the treaties. That the UK must not allow itself to be blackmailed by fanatical pro-EU extremists, and set the agenda.

Few readers might object to following statement on the pretext that what a Muslim religious leaders has to do with the political situation of Europe. But I would say first examine these golden words and keep in mind that any one who claims getting divine guidance form Almighty, his words should carry weight.About the European Union, Mirza Masroor Ahmad, supreme head of International Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, while addressing the members of European Parliament on 04.12.2012 said,
“The formation of the European Union has been a great achievement on the part of the European countries, for it has been a means of uniting this Continent. And so you should make all possible efforts to preserve this unity… Remember that the strength of Europe lies in it remaining united and together as one. Such unity will not only benefit you here in Europe but at a global level will be the means for this Continent to maintain its strength and influence.”
The supreme head of Ahmadiyya community currently resides in UK and hopefully UK Prime Minister and other Britishers will pay ear to his advice.

Religion has no place in politics. Go away, put your religion in a dark box, and then come back to discuss constructively & pragmatically in a way that allows us to mutually relate to one another.

In the context of politics, religion is the only thing worse than rigid & brain-dead ideology. If we're segmented into world-view silos, intolerance, ineffectiveness & failure are inevitable.

If you've found spiritual belonging, that's great - do it at home. But when you're discussing politics, come back to the real world - be prepared for a bit more give & take, and seek to engage people in accessible/ understandable terms of debate. That applies whether you're praising institutions or calling for their destruction.

"In the context of politics, religion is the only thing worse than rigid & brain-dead ideology. If we're segmented into world-view silos, intolerance, ineffectiveness & failure are inevitable."

That sounds like something that a very smart high school student would say - that is, correct on theoretical grounds but realistically impossible.

Unless you are dealing with problems as simple as 1+1 = 2, you are going to need 'world-view silos' to process any sort of information. The idea that there is some sort of dead-centre pragmatism, swayed by nothing but empirical data and facts, does not jibe with the most up-to-date psychological/neurological researches into the human mind.

And it is also dangerous too. Remember that all militants used to think that they were in the absolute right. Whether they thought they were right by the grace of God, or by the grace of reason, it really doesn't matter.

The general idea of pragmatism is to accept human diversity: we know that we don't have the optimal policies or solutions to the world's problems. Nobody does.

Rather, we must be open minded to all points of view; we must seek to empathise will all participants; we must seek productive & synergistic collaboration in which we are creating better outcomes for all rather than zero-sum turf wars over ideologies or religions.

There is nothing dangerous in this - it is to reconcile to a world in which politics will always be shifting, cultures will always be shifting

For democracy to work well, the majority of us have to make an active choice: to seek out and try to engage & empathise with other stakeholders on any area of government policy or law. In this, we must not frame our perspective in terms of religion - that would deprive other people of being able to empathise with us, and kills hope of progress. Likewise, we must avoid framing in terms of narrow ideologies or principles that are not widely shared.

Pragmatism, empathy, positive engagement & compromise, with debate framed in the language of the opposition and trying so far as possible to draw on empirical evidence - that is what liberal democracy requires, and that is why religion should be separated from politics.

@Dominique and Shaun 39
Instead getting fiery and furious on word religion try and make a cool minded effort to evaluate the statement. It contains a great message for the bright and prosper future of Europe.

"The supreme head of Ahmadiyya community currently resides in UK and hopefully UK Prime Minister and other Britishers will pay ear to his advice" - your comment. Interesting advice. However, does the head of this community have much experience in European politics?? Are you an Ahmadiyya Brit yourself??

Does the head of this community have much experience in European politics?
He is well read, tours whole world, meets very frequently European and western politicians and since many years residing in UK. Similarly as intimated ealier when some one has divine guidance needs nothing else to express his view point. Foremost point is the contents of the statement. Unity has strength and leads to prosperity. Just evelauate his words and decide yourself honestly.
I am German citizen.

Noted - he is merely an educated gentleman with a point of view. There are several million people in the same category in Europe. I have read some of his speeches on the internet - they are average, at best. As for "divine guidance", that is a highly disputable point. Like any religious leader, he does a reasonably good job of pretending that he is receiving "inspiration from above". Very few people fall for this hoax in the 21st century.

Kings Lynn in Norfolk is a member of the New Hanseatic League. It is a cultural networking organisation just like the Commonwealth. Most Commonwealth citizens (Indians) still belong to a semi autarky. The Commonwealth as a trade bloc is a fringe nationalist fantasy based on concept of Jospeh Chamberlain's Imperial Federation which was dismissed a non starter over a century ago.

The UK has a strong negotiation position in the EU, due to inherent factors.
1. For historic reasons, the French are wary of being alone with the Germans. Even though this fear is no longer justified, the collective trauma from three wars between 1870 and 1945 is still a political force in France. The only other countries powerful enough to substitute Britain, the USA and Russia, are both outside the EU.
2. For economic reasons, the Germans are wary of being left alone with the French, especially after the election of Hollande and the EURO crisis. France is sliding into a recession and tilting towards the South, and has an additional unwillingness to adapt. The only other countries powerful enough to back up Germany on economic policy, the USA, Japan and the BRICs, are all outside the EU.
3. For historic, economic and military reasons, the EU and the USA are both wary of becoming disconnected from each other. The only EU country that's close enough to the USA, and big enough to guard this connection, is Britain.
This is a position that any other EU country can only dream of. Cameron's only task is to make use of the situation as well as possible, but he doesn't need to press anyone for any significant change.

The UK has a strong negotiation position in the EU, due to inherent factors.
1. For historic reasons, the French are wary of being alone with the Germans. Even though this fear is no longer justified, the collective trauma from three wars between 1870 and 1945 is still a political force in France. The only other countries powerful enough to substitute Britain, the USA and Russia, are both outside the EU.
2. For economic reasons, the Germans are wary of being left alone with the French, especially after the election of Hollande and the EURO crisis. France is sliding into a recession and tilting towards the South, and has an additional unwillingness to adapt. The only countries powerful enough to back up Germany on economic policy, the USA, Japan and the BRICs, are all outside the EU.
3. For historic, economic and military reasons, the EU and the USA are both wary of becoming disconnected from each other. The only EU country that's close enough to the USA, and big enough to guard this connection, is Britain.
This is a position that any other EU country can only dream of. Cameron's only task is to make use of the situation as well as possible, but he doesn't need to press anyone for any significant change.

When it comes to wishful thinking, 5 single currency members are being bailed out, National Socialism is on the rise in the south, riots in single currency member states, wave after wave of people being made homeless and left staving, economies left derelict and/or stagnant, all this due to the decisions taken by pro-EU fanatics.

Germany now has closer relations with Poland than France, they now represent a split in continent, a rich north and a broken south.

You may not like it, but Britain is the only country garantueeing an equilibrium between Germany and France, hence in the EU. The UK's EU-scepsis also reserves space for other, smaller countries like f.ex. Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Hungary and the Czech Republic, to protect their national souvereignity, which is badly needed as a breathing space, in the EU is not to go under as a result of national fears. A withdrawal of the UK from the EU might also risk splitting up the EU in a way which can become very unfortunate for Europe, and could even have the snowball effect of dividing large parts of the entire world into blocks: 1. A German-dominated North, Central and Eastern Europe, in cooperation with Russia, Turkey, Central Asia and possibly China, 2. A French-dominated South, in cooperation with the Arab World and possibly Africa. 3. A US-dominated maritime World, to which in Europe only the UK, Ireland, Iceland and Portugal belong, in cooperation with Japan, Australia, Brasil and possibly India and South-East Asia. Those who think that I overestimate Europe's importance in this, may look at the impact that the break-up of Astro-Hungarian Empire had after, 1918 or of Yugoslavia after 1991, It went far beyond their immediate surroundings, and affecting distant countries that were much more powerful, than the ones that actually split up.

Well, Monsieur, if you experience pleasure in describing the hypothetic extrapolation of long-term historic developments, which might, if unchecked, cause Europe to fade into oblivion due to internally genetared centrifugal forces, as "crystal ball" gazing, it only reveals your rosy naive optimism, which can only continue to exist as a result of a serious lack of any deeper historical or sociological insight.

Here we go again. Do we want in or not? What kind of entity will the EU be when we come to make the decision? In part it depends what’s left after the Euro debacle. Political practicalities and actual requirements for the Eurozone need thinking about and the UK needs to form a coherent set of aims in response to whatever emerges post crisis.

If the Euro survives it will only be in the form of a really tight rule setting club to which we do not belong. In which case the preservation , not to mention the deepening of free trade to include services and energy between the inner and outer EU will be a paramount condition of our staying in otherwise we shall want out.

But will the Eurozone survive? Most commentators ( most notably Philip Whyte of CER) and amateurs like me recognise that a fully fledged banking union is the key to Euro survival. The elements for such a union required are Supervision, Resolution, Deposit protection and Bank recapitalisation.

On Supervision the Germans are both adamant and disingenuous; they don’t want it to apply to all banks certainly not their local savings banks and Landesbanken . The latter may well still be sitting on a lot of dodgy subprime CDO’s that some fairly pedestrian managers bought into when they saw themselves as Nibelungen-like masters of the universe disporting themselves in the never failing fount of high yield. One excuse advanced is that 6,000 odd banks in the Eurozone (2,000 of which are in Germany) are too much for one organisation – by choosing to forget the possibility of delegating day to day matters to the national branches of the ECB ( which aptly describes inter alia the Bundesbank et al , despite protestations to the contrary). The other excuse is risible- Schäuble opines that supervision is incompatible with the job of controlling monetary policy. Nearly every other central bank in the world combines both functions - including, in a couple of minutes, once again our own BOE.

Resolution ( closing down in plain English) with its companion Deposit protection both imply a degree of super nationalism within the Eurozone that is not even on the horizon. Looking to the current domestic German model ; they have three separate Deposit protection schemes that, so far, even they, haven’t managed to merge. The ability to shut down a bank within a country by a body outside that country is something we can all imagine the French or the Italians signing up to like a shot - never mind the Germans themselves. Similarly the idea of Germans or French taxpayers agreeing to protect Spanish retail depositors seems a little far fetched in today’s political landscape.

Bank recapitalisation for states like Ireland has proved pretty shaky, but if the relationships between sovereign debt and bank balance sheets are ever to be unwound, banks within the Eurozone that are too big for their boots and their home country’s fiscal base will need to have access to funds for recapitalisation that come from a Eurozone fiscal backstop. No country within the Eurozone has even suggested putting up the money for such a backstop – there’s no EU treasury after all and no country willing to pass revenues from their own parliament to such an entity

ii
So, all in all a banking union worthy of the name looks a tad unlikely. Even if it were to come screaming and kicking into the world, could the EU run it successfully? Forgetting for a moment that they can’t even balance their own tiny 1% of EU GDP budget what’s their track record? A fabulously functioning Coal and Steel community has resulted in scarcely a mine open and the French squabbling with an Indian gentleman over the remnants of their steel industry . The German steel makers are passing up their dividends and the biggest steel plant in Europe (ILVA in Italy) is using environmental pressure ( fully justified) to shut and pass the wages bill to the tax payer. The ESC’s descendant , the EU, has a fishing policy tried in the scales ( pun intended) and found wanting. Most infamously of all the EU spends 40% of its budget on an agricultural policy that sports a CAP that nobody wants to wear - the farmers say they’re broke and the consumers pay above world prices. To crown these somewhat limited achievements we have an ill-founded means of exchange in the Euro whose fanatical acolytes are prepared to defend at the price of sacrificing a hard won European harmony that owes far more to demography ( oldies don’t fight),the Marshall plan, NATO and the dear old Russkies for providing a common enemy than the EU ever did. I never knew the Norwegians had a sense of humour; a Nobel peace prize on the day the triple A nations reneged on the deal to use the ESM to uncouple the banks from the sovereigns?

Suppose the new improved tightly run Eurolandia that has been advocated either doesn’t happen or fails in the usual miserable way, then the UK could possibly remain and help to clear up the mess in its usual pragmatic way? Yes, but only if some of the recent, rather over-theatrical anti UK attitudes subside sufficiently for reason to prevail.

However, a much more fundamental question for the UK is not ‘Do they like us or not?’ , but ‘Do we want to be part of an organisation that’s lost the capacity to think straight and has no intention of mending its ways?’ Greece was allowed in as a political conceit. The rules were changed. Outright economies with the truth were knowingly accepted by the Eurocracy, aided and abetted by the Goldman Sachs tribe ( amongst others) who used interest rate swaps and other financial instruments to obscure the true financial position of the country. Two of the current heroes jousting in the lists for Dame Euro’s favours are ex-employees of the same financial tribe – Draghi at the ECB and the other Mario in Italy. They’re not doing a bad job as poachers turned gamekeepers. But, in all probability the wrong job. Once in, Greece (2.3% of Eurozone GDP) behaved as badly as could be. Yet the main players are busy turning every rule book upside down to retain this non-contributor at enormous cost to the Eurozone taxpayer whilst cheerfully waving goodbye to the UK; one of the main contributors in both financial and policy creating terms. Amongst the UK’s achievements are the promulgation and defence of the free market and the encouragement of the accession of the ex-Comintern countries. Meanwhile, most of Southern Europe is being reduced to a state of financial and industrial collapse; all in the name of a currency. Are we dealing with a rational crowd? Currencies – especially fiat currencies- are created to serve people not the other way round.

In France and Germany’s defence it should be made clear that the Foreign Office appears to have long been asleep at the wheel as far as European diplomacy is concerned. Months if not years should have been spent signalling and pre-selling our requirements for, amongst other things, the City which is as important to us as agriculture is to France. Alliances should have been made. Instead of which last-but-one time round when every body was tired , the women were empty and the bottles gone home: up steps Cameron in true Michael Caine style with ‘I’ve got an idea’. Naturally ‘Sodez-vous off!’ came the chorus. That was last time. This time round mercifully things went a bit better.